Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Anynobody

In lieu of Mathbot, which seems slow on the uptake, here is a link to Interiot's Wannabe Kate counter for Anynobody's edit count. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 07:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alternate counter, it is a much better Jeffrey O. Gustafson. I was looking at it (the Mathbot counter) going, "I've done more than this...or am I crazy?" Anynobody 09:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean anything negative by using the whole signature in my post, Jeffrey O. Gustafson. When it comes to signatures I prefer to include everything rather than delete what I don't think is necessary, I won't make the same mistake twice. Anynobody 10:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions
I want to take a moment to thank everyone for participating, I appreciate the time you've taken to post here. Anynobody 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions
To be clear, any questions I ask are not intended to change votes. They are also not meant to be taken as sarcastic, you've already taken the time to comment and I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying. Anynobody 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time, Anynobody 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully understand that the amount of time editing here is cause for concern, by and large I think it makes sense to make a potential administrator prove themselves since taking away an adminship is very time consuming and inconvenient. To address this I imagined being open to recall would show that I'm willing to resign if the community thinks I'm not doing a good job. (Honestly, a few unrelated editors or administrators that explain why I am a disaster in a logical way is all I'd need to resign myself.) So here's the question: Why doesn't the recall option offset the risk of my abusing the tools?

Recall is a meaningless joke. Anyone can say they are open to recall, and then ignore it without consequence after they get the tools. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 08:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That should change then, people who say they will and don't are essentially lying. I'd feel like a jackass with no credibility if I was to keep admin tools after a RfC said I should give them back. (Out of curiosity can you point to me any that have done this, I don't understand how he/she could expect anyone to accept anything from a liar).
 * Also, why have the option if it doesn't work? Thanks, Anynobody 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anyone ever reached the recall threshold? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Ben Aveling, I'm sorry for the delay. That is a very good question. I don't know, but I'll see what I can find out and respond here. Anynobody 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Theres no adopted policy regarding recall, but a category of admins open to it, Category:Administrators_open_to_recall. There have been admins who have resigned at the community request though, List. I would honestly do the same if the community wanted me to. Anynobody 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked AE and A1 how they feel about
...allowing me to reveal their names or identifying themselves. I apologize for the delay, Anynobody 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're a day late for that party, Anynobody. Haven't you noticed me outing myself as A1, in oppose !vote 9 (following Bunchofgrapes' comment)? Didn't you see me urge you there to be open and straightforward? It's a good idea to take a look at what happens in your RFA from time time. Obviously you must give !voters a chance to evaluate, for themselves, what happened about the RFC, since questions have been asked. Don't expect them to simply swallow your narrative—that's not the way it works in RFA. Please give them the links they need to be able to understand what happened. If you think there's anything in there that's embarrassing to me, you're quite mistaken. I shall watch with interest. Bishonen | talk 07:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
 * As shall I. Oh, and ample diffs are now provided. --Justanother 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Bishonen, I assure you I do keep an eye on the comments made by all three opinions. You obviously are still angry about what happened before, so I'm not 100% sure if your questions and comments are rhetorical or genuine. I'm going to WP:AGF and answer them in case anyone else wants to know. I apologize but I didn't notice your outing yourself because I was under the impression you'd respond on your talk page first: User_talk:Bishonen. I honestly hadn't expected the situation to come up, if I had I would have asked you and Smee first. I'd also like to point out that I have been doing other edits besides posting here, so please don't think I have been ignoring you. Now that I know you and Smee and both comfortable being mentioned I'll be adding much more specific information about what happened. Aside from not mentioning your names, what do you believe was misleading about the events as I described them? Anynobody 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "First.."? I opposed long before you posted your question on my page, so I'm really not clear what kind of impression this is that you mention. You don't read the Opposes, really? I thought you were so keen to learn from them? Anyway. I had written you a longish reply here, but seeing that you have posted further attacks on me on the RFA page itself, and that Justanother has also posted on the same subject there, I've moved my response to my !vote, as an explanation for why I'm opposing you at this time. Bishonen | talk 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Honestly Bishonen, I am not attacking you. I'm trying to explain what happened as I see it, and now see if I can get some questions answered I've been wondering about. Seriously there is a difference between disagreeing with your actions in the past and attacking you. I am trying to do the former, but could you explain why it's coming off as an attack? I also didn't notice your vote and wanted to get both you and Smee's opinion before I started mentioning names. Even if I had noticed, I would have made a note on your talk page to let you know I had planned on asking you if you hadn't already known because I was asking Smee too. (In retrospect, if I had only talked to Smee and not you that would have made me look like a jerk). Anynobody 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. ELIZA, why do you think it's coming off as an attack? Bishonen | talk 02:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Seriously Bishonen I'm not trying to attack you, if this is an attack or if I'm wrong please explain why I'm wrong in thinking that it was a mistake for you to delete the RfC once it was approved. Please bear in mind that if it had been rejected that would have been understandable, but the act of deleting it once it was receiving comments seems wrong because it was a RfC that was drawing comments. Anynobody 05:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, will you please answer my above question? I respect that me pointing out what I perceive to be a mistake on your part must be aggravating but if you would just explain why I'm so off-base to me directly in a logical way I'd stop. As it is all you've done is accuse me of lying and trying to somehow censor Justanother by copying his comments in order to continue on the talk page. Anynobody 08:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "I respect that me pointing out what I perceive to be a mistake on your part must be aggravating." You respect that, do you? Those are the words of a troll. I regret wasting so much perfectly good admin time dialoguing with you in the first place. If you really want to know about the RFC, I've explained it at length on my talkpage and in my Oppose. That'll have to do. I've given you many suggestions for what you can do if you're trying in good faith but still failing to understand it, for instance asking Daniel Bryant who you call "an uninvolved admin" (in contrast to me, curiously, although he commented in the RFC and I didn't), etc, etc. —I won't repeat all that, either. It's over. Open an RFC on me if you want more, feel absolutely free. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Yes, and I realize now that I have been well and truly trolled. A great lesson for me; I won't soon forget it. Lesson being that it takes two to truly troll. Truly. --Justanother 14:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Threaded discussion below Bishonen's Oppose !vote moved here
.''Anynobody, I can't believe you thought it proper to leave your own comment on the main page and only move Justanother's here. You really don't act a lot like an admin. Here's the whole conversation together. Bishonen | talk 08:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC).''

Respectfully Bishonen I am not lying, he asked and you did it. diff Anynobody 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And anyone that clicks that diff from WP:ANI that you helpfully provided will see that I specifically asked for "a previously uninvolved admin" which would not have included Bishonen who was very previously involved in that RfC as counselor to you and User:Smee in setting it up. That she "did the right thing" in cancelling it is admirable and speaks to her integrity as an admin but I did not ask her to (as in your "Justanother asked Bishonen . . .") Need I say the "l-word" again? I think not. --Justanother 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In order to keep this area clear for people voting, I've copied your comment to the talk page and we can continue there. Anynobody 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC
 * You can say what you like of course, I'd encourage you to be careful about false accusations though. The point I'm making is you asked that it be deleted, and Bishonen accomodated after an uninvolved admin wouldn't. Anynobody 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is what it is. And any editor can see what it is and what it was on the Schwarz talk page. --Justanother 07:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really much else to say. I do not intend to go round and round on it with you here. The main page was the place to point it out and it has been pointed out. No reason for excess discussion here. --Justanother 07:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you may want to still answer my questions though, I don't think editors are so dumb as to NOT follow the discussion over here if they are interested. First let me explain to you that this is what a talk page is for, when editors start debating each other on the project page it gets to be a pain to find a previous edit if you want to change your vote or correct something about it. I have a question though, assuming you are right... what is the purpose of a talk page here or in a WP:AFD?
 * I'd also still like an explanation why you think a WP:RFC was improper considering that Smee and myself ARE NOT the only editors (and possibly some admins) that think your entire attitude is highly incompatible with the values and policies here in general. A quick browse of the archives on your talk page will show that you've caused a lot of people concern. Or is that exactly why you didn't want the WP:RfC to happen? Anynobody 07:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is joke, right??? The RfC was inappropriate because you refused to follow the rules of it. Not only that but you ignored my repeated attempts to get you to either handle your situation with me personally or to use a neutral 3rd party. I suggested two neutral 3rd parties, User:Jossi and User:BTfromLA, that you rejected (I may have you a bit mixed up with User:Smee on those but I don't feel like researching the diffs - I think I have it right), and invited you many many times to find someone else if you did not like my choices (that I know is right). I tried to handle the dispute; you just go round and round with offensive "analyses" and misrepresentations. Round and round and round and round. Well, I ain't gonna go round and round with you here. This is my entire statement on the matter. If you have some dispute with me you can take it up on my talk page or find a neutral 3rd. I am not going to post a bunch of diffs to support my claims here; Here is the last of many on your talk page. Here is the last of many on Talk:Barbara Schwarz page. --Justanother 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)